D&D 4E What was the final clarification for the timing issues of Divine Challenge and Divine Sanction?

[Shin Okada]

IIRC at some point WotC FAQ said that even if damages from those marks killed the enemy, that enemy's attack is still solved.

Then, Divine Challenge got an errata when Essentials line were published. At this moment the Insider says,

Until the mark ends, the target takes radiant damage the first time each round when it targets any of your allies with an attack power that doesn't include you as a target.

Does that mean now Divine Challenge can kill an enemy and technically negate it's attack? Or not?

How about Divine Sanction?

 

[MwaO]

In general, all options that act on a trigger are treated as immediate reactions unless it wouldn't do anything.

Example: Trigger: On a miss, add +4 to hit. If it doesn't add +4 to hit when you miss, it doesn't do anything.

So Divine Challenge/Sanction wait until the attack is resolved and then do damage. Because damage will happen either way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e was done with 'exception based design,' that means that general rules and precedent don't count for much compared to the exact phrasing of a specific rule. It's annoying, I never cared for it, I've spent a small fraction of the excessive time I've dedicated to commenting on 4e in mocking it.

But...

Until the mark ends, the target takes radiant damage the first time each round when it targets any of your allies with an attack power that doesn't include you as a target.

Assuming that is a direct quote from the specific rule in question, well: 'Targets' is something that's done before you even get to attack rolls, let alone damage, so if your Challenged/Sanctioned foe targets your ally and takes enough radiant damage to drop, no attack to resolve.

It's also a general rule in 4e that when you're under an effect, you know what it does, and Divine Challenge/Sanction has no specifics I recall that contradict that, so presumably the foe knows the score and will attack you - or not attack at all, heck, if he's that low on hps, maybe even surrender - rather than killing himself.

Besides, the point of defender features is to take the heat off allies, not to increase your DPR.


Edit: glancing at the paladin in the Compendium, the phrasing above is from the updated Divine Challenge, IIRC, the update removed language about moving towards an enemy being sufficient to keep the challenge active, and was less clear about whether you needed to 'engage' on your turn, or simply at the first opportunity after using Divine Challenge - I've seen DMs run it that you could use Divine Challenge last thing on your turn and wait until your next turn to engage.
The DDI Divine Sanction, OTOH, still says 'attack' rather than 'target,' FWIW.

 

[Cyvris]

This is a very interesting corner case I'd never considered. I think the closet comparison we have is the Swordmage Aegis, but both of those specify if the are a Interrupt or Reaction. Since DC/DS don't have that as part of their "top block" write up, I guess we have to go to what's in the "effect" portion and "targets" would incline me to say the creature takes damage before the attack. The best way to resolve it though would be to find the last printing of both of those to read.

 

[MwaO]

Assuming that is a direct quote from the specific rule in question, well: 'Targets' is something that's done before you even get to attack rolls, let alone damage, so if your Challenged/Sanctioned foe targets your ally and takes enough radiant damage to drop, no attack to resolve.

The trigger is not targets. The trigger is an attack power that doesn't include you as a target. Resolve the attack power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The trigger is not targets. The trigger is an attack power that doesn't include you as a target. Resolve the attack power.

True, it wouldn't be triggered by an enemy targeting an ally with a utility power. I'm not sure how that changes anything, though. The trigger is on targeting, not on attacking, hitting, 'hitting or missing,' or inflicting damage.

Targeting happens before attack rolls, no?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The trigger is not targets. The trigger is an attack power that doesn't include you as a target. Resolve the attack power.

Attack powers are resolved through a sequence of STEPS however, of which targeting (IE declaring the target(s) of the attack) is IIRC the FIRST step, followed by attack roll(s), and then allocation of damage. The pre-RC interpretation which was considered fairly canonical on Q&A was basically the [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] interpretation, the effect is triggered as soon as the attacker declares targets and they don't include the paladin. However, as [MENTION=12749]MwaO[/MENTION] alludes to there is an errata which states that any effect which has no explicit interrupt timing is considered a reaction (and thus takes place entirely after the triggering effect completes) unless this interpretation would make said effect void (in which case it will then have interrupt speed).

This was a quite overbroad and highly fraught errata. There are MANY things which it doesn't explicitly nullify, and yet it makes them virtually worthless, leading to a preposterous amount of wrangling and argument. Admittedly, there were a few corner-cases that it solved, but at a big cost IMHO. It was one of the MANY "errata that should not be" that sprang forth from WotC in the later days of 4e.

Still, I don't think DC/DS is one of the things this errata screwed over. I think they still work fine, they just might not negate an attack in this one corner case. Their major purpose in any case is to inflict Defender punishment damage on enemies ignoring the paladin, and they still do this fine post-errata.

So, I think the upshot is you apply the damage after the attack resolves entirely, assuming you are playing 'by the book'.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This was a quite overbroad and highly fraught errata.

Hey, more evidence for the intentional grounding theory of essentials. ;P

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hey, more evidence for the intentional grounding theory of essentials. ;P

Well, it was sort of a no-win situation. There were a LOT of people asking about ambiguous timing stuff, some of which was pretty crazy. They'd already issued 1000's of errata for different things, and abused the hell out of the whole errata concept. So, instead of digging into a vast array of timing problems, they just made a decree that they all don't exist, and foisted it all off onto DM judgement (without really saying so, but who else is going to adjudicate if a power 'does something' or not?). It was kind of a s***y move IMHO, but I'm not sure just ignoring the issue was really BETTER, and they clearly weren't going to issue another 1000+ errata...

 

[Tony Vargas]

They'd already abused the hell out of the whole errata concept

For one thing, they didn't even call it 'errata.'

So, instead of digging into a vast array of timing problems, they just made a decree that they all don't exist, and foisted it all off onto DM judgement

... in no way prophetic of the 5e direction in retrospect...

It was kind of a s***y move IMHO, but I'm not sure just ignoring the issue was really BETTER, and they clearly weren't going to issue another 1000+ errata...

They were being very reactive, and generally reacting to not particularly valid complaints. "Too much errata" is a complaint, sure, but addressing it by leaving stuff 'broken' is not the ideal solution.
Intentionally breaking more stuff hardly seems a better one.